The Western [Councils] *)- page 16, The Western Soviets ~ worker councils versus parliament 1915-1920, by Donny Gluckstein (Nov 1985).
Notes (not from the book, but from law4.org author):
Councils or Soviets
Because the word 'Soviet' has been negatively propagandized both by Stalin and western Capitalism, it is translated back from translitterated Russian to its normally translated meaning: Council. A parliament is also a Soviet (a Council), and the group of ministers of the Czar was also called a Soviet of Ministers (Council) (source: wikipedia). Furthermore it is not the Mensheviks that became dominant in the so-called Soviet Union that was no Soviet Union, it was the Bolsheviks. Here we see that the system of councils emanates from the Mensheviks (who where more moderate, whereas the Bolsheviks where the radicals.)
Obviously the Soviet Union had little to do with Councils representing the masses. It was a dictatorship under Stalin, and therefore a Czarist system of Government, a Monarchy. People are generally so superficial and ruled by their manipulated emotions, that once they see the word 'Soviet' they might just move away already, not realizing that the Soviets (Councils) are a force against Stalin, against what the historical Government of the 'Soviet Union' became; which was a communist party dictatorship, not a generalized Council method of electing the Government. This method of election is another way of electing the Government, as such it does not define whether there should be capitalism, a plan-economy or something else. It is merely an election system. On this website such an election system is also worked out, with even smaller election groups then the above mentioned 500 persons: 50 persons elect one delegate.
It seems that the 1905 and 1917 Russian Revolutions have failed through a combination of factors: not a clear set of laws to make the councils uniform, too heavy Revolutionary circumstances (which would have been a grave burden on every form of Government), and not enough insights into economics leading to the totalitarian plan-economy, which then made the burden on the Government even greater, as well as imploding economic activity of the population. Economic activity became problematic under the illusions of Marxism / communism, with its totalitarian plan-economy. From here we get the proverb about Russia under its Communist Party: They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.
On this website (law4.org) the council form of Government is strictly regulated in proposed Constitutional Law. The Constitution will be supreme over the Government. The Government may not change this Constitution, but exists to obey it. The economic sphere is not usurped by the Government, but is set free for trade in products and services. To make that as free as possible with power for all: larger companies that are no longer under the starter will be forced by law to have internally democratic statutes. Plutocracy (extreme wealth) will be outlawed, the top heavy financial sector will generally be outlawed by making trade in loans and investment for profit mostly illegal, and land will be distributed to all as an individual inalienable right. This is hoped to create the conditions within which the people can run their productive lives as they wish. The State does not rule the productive process, but only guards the law. Hopefully at least with such a more developed ideological standpoint, and building on the thoughts and experiences of the labor class of the past, this time we can succeed and build a stable society with a higher level of Justice that has been achieved under Capitalist parliament.
To contrast capitalism with the above: Capitalist parliament is a system of extremely large groups electing a few dozen people, and a system of trade that includes besides products and services: land, productive groups of people, high capital, and affords limitless wealth concentration. It used to include humans as well (the slave trade) although this has been outlawed in later incarnations of capitalism. It still is a system of wild trade that can only spiral out of control into fascism and war, as it always does sooner or later. It breaks at a certain point of wealth concentration, leading to social unrest, calls for changing the system (such as this website), and the reactionary counter-measures to these by the ruling class: repression, war, tyranny.
The reason for the periodic collapse of capitalist parliament becomes particularly obvious when one thinks about what human behavior should be within the capitalist system, for it to not develop into a Plutocracy and dictatorship through wealth concentration. Example: The concentration of land ownership titles is caused by those who already have land, have the position to become wealthy from it. Those who are deprived of land, will be powerless thanks to their relative poverty. They can not get out of their poverty, because they have no land. What does it take for land ownership to remain reasonably distributed within a capitalist system ? It requires that on average, humans loose their land at the same rate, as acquiring it. But why would those who hold on to land titles, loose their land, except to an even bigger land owner with even more land and power ? They would have to just give it away, or return it to wild nature, out of the sheer generosity of their hearts. Clearly this generosity is not exhibited by humanity.
Capitalism is a naive Utopian model.
Hence the system of capitalism is another naive Utopian model, where people expect humanity to behave extraordinarily moral. Capitalism really is the twin of Communism, where they expect a similar extraordinary moral effort. The difference between capitalism and communism on this matter, is that communism openly demands poeple to be moral, whereas under capitalism the opposite is assumed. Capitalism still works better then Commmunism, but that is not because of its land trade, trade in high capital, or trade in companies or say wage-slave groups of humans (in a way a softer form of slave trade). Capitalism still works somewhat because it affords the trade in products and services.
A plan-economy can in turn also be defined as the maximum wealth concentration, the end stage of capitalism; served with a humanitarian propaganda sause. It should not surprise anyone if they would find that high bankers who operate various monopolies and seek to dominate the State, show an interest in a system of Communism, a totalitarian plan-economy. Capitalism and Communism are twins. They cause each other, they are each others opposite, they point out each others flaws, and they fight each other. The ones hurt is the People. Capitalism ignores the problem of wealth concentration leading to fascism and dictatorship. The totalitarian plan-economy of Communism ignores the suffering masses because of the impossible task of supplanting person to person trade with mass decisions which by practical necessity become State Decisions.
Unfortunately for the overlords of the System, those suffering their abuses do not have the luxury to ignore them ...